Week 1 School Finance

What a week, so much to learn with so little time. Although time was tight and the amount of work was great I was really excited to get into this subject. Here are my reflections to each of the four parts of the assignment.

My top three events in the history of finance in Texas Education are:
Gilmer Aiken Laws in 1949
o These developed our current salary schedule, and basically ensure a particular quality of life for educators
o Created the first version of the tax base that funds public education currently
o The outcome was the beginning of a state level influx of money to fund public education and with the lowering of the number of districts, the law made funding education possible.
Rodriguez v. San Antonio ISD
o A lawsuit that came about due to a viewpoint of some concerned parents and the inequitable status of school funding, i.e. wealth based discrimination.
o This case also challenged the 14th amendment concerning the fundamental right of education. Although this was not upheld in the Supreme Court, it paved the way for many civil rights laws in the future.
2006 HB 1
o Legislation that froze per pupil spending in districts across the state.
o Created an inequitable status among varying districts
• District A capped at $7,000 per pupil spending
• District B capped at $5,000 per pupil spending
• This creates a situation where a student’s education in District A is more valuable than in District B
• Today we still live with this legislation, and with the passing of the finance bill in the 82 Legislative session, districts will be forced to hand the increasing cost of education to the local taxpayer through Tax Rollback Elections.

Equality means that every student has the same access to the same type of basic educational program.

· Examples:

o #1 SPED allotment

o #2 Foundation School Fund

Equity means that the system is fair and responds to the needs of individuals.

· Examples

o #1 Compensatory Education Grant

o #2 Bilingual Education Block Grant

Adequacy means that the school district receives financial support sufficient to meet state accreditation standards.

· Examples

o #1 Funding per student, WADA

o #2 The entire school finance template should be set to meet the state accreditation standards. Things like the formula fund, spending per student should be set to meet the best interest of the students.

My reflection on the School Finance Template:
This was the hardest portion of the assignment for me because the only person in our district who can explain the finance template is also completing the building of the district budget for submission by the end of the month. What I did learn is that funding is complex. I learned that public perception that the Legislative session increased funding per WADA is great, but what is missing is the additional cuts in Formula Funding that reduce total revenue for all districts in 11-12. For our district this will mean a loss in about 775,000 dollars in 11-12, and 500,000 dollars in 12-13 when compared to 10-11 budget figures. I also learned that as legislatures alter funding, the replacement funds are rarely equal to the original. For, example, High school allotment and Technology allotment will both be gone in the coming biennium, and not replaced. For our district as a one to one laptop district, these funds were used to maintain the network structure for our students. This will now come out of local dollars. Pre-K is another example. This is a grant formally funded by the state, but no longer exists. This only hurts students. I have not read any studies, so I will make a generalization. Success in Pre-K correlates to increased success in k-12 for students participating when compared to students who did not.
Lastly, I learned more about the 2006 Target Revenue per student that was defined for each school district. I still cannot understand how this is possible to remain law in Texas. It has created a school finance climate where the dollars spent per student changes with geography. Shouldn't every student's educational value be equalized? It blows my mind.

And my comparison to the AISD DIP:

Austin ISD's DIP is organized and well thought out. It seems like many of the required aspects of the DIP are present. I did not see a Migrant specific section of the DIP, which is required. I did notice many aspects of the DIP that were present as required: SCE budget and FTEs, Needs Assessment, SHAC input, district advisory council's members, and many more. the way I understand the DIP, budget spending noted in this document is audit-able. This means that as moneys is expended out of federal and state grant funds they should be noted here. Then these expenditures should be tied to an identified activity which is then tied to a need from the district Needs Assessment. I cannot see clear evidence of this in the AISD plan. You can also not see this in our district DIP, although we are making steps to document this properly in this school year, but it truly is a challenge to document spending in yet another place.

Overall the DIP from Austin and CISD are similar, formatted differently but the basic characteristics are present.

CISD uses a programed called plan4learning to tie all expenditures to an activity that is then tied back to the Comprehensive Needs Assessment. With these steps we ensure connection to an identified need with adequate documentation for all expenditures. In the past these steps have not been taken to the full extent required for compliance, but with new procedures in place for the 11-12 school year, compliance should be met to full satisfaction.